Acquitted Despite Acting as a Voice Phishing Collector... Why?

Thought It Was a Quick Delivery Job, But Delivered a Victim's Card
Court: "No Evidence He Knew He Was Delivering a Card"

A man in his 40s who was put on trial after discovering that what he thought was a quick delivery part-time job was actually a role as a collector for a voice phishing operation has been acquitted in the first trial.

According to Yonhap News on August 30, the Seoul Southern District Court Criminal Division 11 (Judge Jung Sunghwa) acquitted Mr. A (46) on August 22, stating that there was no recognition of criminal intent.

The Seoul Southern District Court Criminal Division 11 (Judge Jung Sunghwa) acquitted Mr. A (46), who was involved in voice phishing collection, ruling that there was no intent to commit the crime.

After his pension business failed and he was struggling financially, Mr. A saw a post on a social networking service (SNS) in July of last year recruiting for a "quick delivery part-time job." The advertisement stated "beginners welcome" and "daily wages paid on the same day." When Mr. A clicked the link in the post, he was connected to a person called "Manager Kim."

Manager Kim explained that Mr. A's work would involve "quick delivery of documents related to the company" and that "50,000 won would be paid per job on the same day." When Mr. A agreed to take the job, Manager Kim instructed him to install a specific messenger app. Through this app, Mr. A received a task to pick up a box registered under someone else's name at an apartment in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul. Following the instructions, Mr. A collected the box and handed it over to an unidentified man in his 40s in front of a subway station in Gwanak-gu.

After performing this task three times in this manner, Mr. A was eventually summarily indicted as a member of a voice phishing criminal organization. It turned out that instead of a quick delivery worker, he had been acting as a "collector" for a phishing ring. The box Mr. A picked up contained a check card belonging to a victim who had been deceived by a promise of "loan available against deposit," and the account linked to the card was used in the actual crime.

Mr. A requested a formal trial and argued in court that he did not know he was participating in a phishing crime. However, the prosecution countered that Mr. A must have been aware of his involvement in a crime, citing the unusual nature of the work process and the fact that the daily wage was high compared to the simple delivery task.

The court explained, "There is no evidence to confirm or infer that Mr. A delivered the box with the awareness or intention of delivering an access medium (card)." The court added, "During the investigation, Mr. A asked if the heavy parcel might contain something suspicious like drugs, and in court, he stated that he did not think the box would contain cards because it was heavy. Considering these facts, there is no proof of criminal conduct."

The prosecution is reportedly considering whether to appeal.